Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Steve Miner
Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Josh Hartnett, Michelle Williams, Alan Arkin, Jodi Lyn O'Keefe
From: Dimension Films
Somehow, I had never seen this before last night. Turns out, my life wasn't ruined by not seeing it at the time. I explain why in my Letterboxd review:
Would you believe that I had never seen this movie before last night? Tis true. That is despite being a teenager in high school when it came out and I had already watched the first two flicks by the time it came out, which is all you needed for the continuity of this film. Here's another old story from my past: back when it came out in '98, I remember hearing some people I know talk about the movie and one noted that he wasn't a fan. I am sure everyone knows by now the killcount of this wasn't high, and they didn't like that. I did not argue but I thought, “Hey, that's just like the first Halloween.” Still, I never felt like checking it out, as I had heard many negative opinions of it since '98. Well, I thought those people were right.
I am sure everyone knows that Laurie Strode returns and only the first two Halloween movies are canon in this universe. That's all well and good... except that this movie is dull. The original is slowly paced, but it's always interesting as there are memorable and characters you can relate to. Here, there's plenty of dialogue that just made me shake my head and sigh. The Kevin Williamson effect was obvious and even if I hadn't heard he did uncredited rewrites I would have figured it out. In the future I'll do longer reviews of the Scream movies but as a whole they are fine. I would have preferred it if this movie wouldn't have come off as wanting to be a Scream sequel. Heck, you see part of Scream 2 on a television, and instead of using John Ottman's score, much of it is replaced, some of it by music from Scream and Scream 2. This SO seems like a product of the late 90's, and that is even if you exclude the CREED song you hear in the end credits.
I thought some of the dialogue was really bad & made me cringe in how it failed to be “hip” for “the kids”, and that's not even taking into account the obvious references present. Jamie Lee's mom Janet Leigh appearing is fine and all, and her name being “Norma” is cute. However, they hammer in the references to Psycho and that got old. The thing is, the cast was decent, there were some creepy moments and the final showdown between Laurie and her brother had some cool moments. Then, it got over the top... of course, there being no John Carpenter or Donald Pleasence definitely hurts. You couldn't do anything about either; Carpenter always felt like he got ripped off by the Akkad family.
The long wait for me to see this, it made me realize I did not miss much by not watching this bland, flatly directed mostly forgettable flick. I can say that two moments made me laugh real loud: Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his friend saying that they'll get “wasted” after Levitt pilfered one beer for the each of them (as it does sound like something that teenage boys would do) and then there's the subplot of LL Cool J and him writing what's supposed to be serious novel but instead it's pretty much smut and had he been in 2016 he would have quite the library of stories on either AO3 or Fanfiction.net! It's so strange and doesn't fit with the movie, I just had to guffaw.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Monday, May 30, 2016
The Reunion
The Reunion (2011)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Michael Pavone
Starring: John Cena, Ethan Embry, Michael Rispoli, Boyd Holbrook, Gregg Henry
From: The wonderful WWE Studios
This movie... it sucked. I'll explain why below:
This is one of the movies about to vanish from Netflix Instant at the end of the month and as many of the movies I have in my queue can be found elsewhere but this one isn't so I decided to go with this obscure WWE Studios production, where the one wrestler in the cast is John Cena, before he became an Internet meme. Well, this is one movie not really worth seeing so its leaving Instant is no big deal.
The plot has Cena, Ethan Embry, Michael Rispoli and Boyd Holbrook as half-siblings. Their terrible father just died and they have to work together to get 12 million dollars. Embry is a bail bondsman and the guy he had a bond on went to Mexico... after kidnapping billionaire Gregg Henry. The three half-brothers work together to try and get that reward money. Goofy, but I was willing to go with it... unfortunately, all the siblings just love bickering with each other and they are all somewhere on the scale of being an asstagonist, and I can tell you for certain that Embry as Leo is a gigantic asstagonist, someone who I could not stand at all.
Then again, the villains are petty annoying too. There are various story issues to boot (there are plenty of unanswered questions, such as the audience never having any club just what exactly the billionaire does for a living and how he became a billionaire) and the ending made me want to throw something at the screen. There is some alright action but that's no reason to see this. Cena gets shot in one scene but that ends up barely even slowing him down... meaning he was just like his pro wrestling character. In addition, I knew I was in trouble when the movie began and Holbrook is being released from prison... and all the prisoners give him a standing ovation because they love him! Um, what?
Like I said, this suddenly being hard to find in the streaming world is no great tragedy.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Michael Pavone
Starring: John Cena, Ethan Embry, Michael Rispoli, Boyd Holbrook, Gregg Henry
From: The wonderful WWE Studios
This movie... it sucked. I'll explain why below:
This is one of the movies about to vanish from Netflix Instant at the end of the month and as many of the movies I have in my queue can be found elsewhere but this one isn't so I decided to go with this obscure WWE Studios production, where the one wrestler in the cast is John Cena, before he became an Internet meme. Well, this is one movie not really worth seeing so its leaving Instant is no big deal.
The plot has Cena, Ethan Embry, Michael Rispoli and Boyd Holbrook as half-siblings. Their terrible father just died and they have to work together to get 12 million dollars. Embry is a bail bondsman and the guy he had a bond on went to Mexico... after kidnapping billionaire Gregg Henry. The three half-brothers work together to try and get that reward money. Goofy, but I was willing to go with it... unfortunately, all the siblings just love bickering with each other and they are all somewhere on the scale of being an asstagonist, and I can tell you for certain that Embry as Leo is a gigantic asstagonist, someone who I could not stand at all.
Then again, the villains are petty annoying too. There are various story issues to boot (there are plenty of unanswered questions, such as the audience never having any club just what exactly the billionaire does for a living and how he became a billionaire) and the ending made me want to throw something at the screen. There is some alright action but that's no reason to see this. Cena gets shot in one scene but that ends up barely even slowing him down... meaning he was just like his pro wrestling character. In addition, I knew I was in trouble when the movie began and Holbrook is being released from prison... and all the prisoners give him a standing ovation because they love him! Um, what?
Like I said, this suddenly being hard to find in the streaming world is no great tragedy.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Lady Vengeance (i.e. Sympathy For Lady Vengeance)
Lady Vengeance (Chinjeol Geumjassi) (2005)
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Chan-Wook Park
Starring: Yeong-Ae Lee, Min-Sik Choi, Shi-Hoon Kim, Yea-Young Kwon, Tony Barry
From: Several South Korean companies
I thought that this would be a busy weekend full of movie-watching. Well... there's an issue with my air conditioning so that's why I am not focused on films. Still, I'll try to see some today and tomorrow, and those reviews will be popping up who knows when. As for this movie, it's 0-2 when it comes to Park's films, as I disliked this as much as I did Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I explain why in my short Letterboxd review below:
You know, I have to make a controversial statement here. I typically enjoy watching South Korean movies, which is something I should do more often. However, I have discovered that the films of Chan-Wook Park just are not for me. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance was relentlessly ugly and brutal, not pleasing at all for me. This movie, it will be gone from Netflix Instant at the end of this month so I figured I should give it a shot.
After all, the general story sounded interesting: “a unjustly convicted young lady is freed from prison and is looking for revenge against those who created the plot to put her in prison”. It sounds like something I'd dig. However, the story... not only did I also find it incredibly unpleasant but it was just preposterous and nonsensical. The movie has its moments (this does not include all that cake/Tofu stuff; is this a cultural thing I have no knowledge of or was this just a failed attempt at being “amusing” by being “wacky”?) but they were few and far between for me. Instead, I was just turned off by much of what I was seeing, and boy does it get worse as it progresses.
I think I am done with Chan-Wook Park's movies for good. Yes, that means never seeing the much-beloved Oldboy. If I have major tonal issues/think what he does is too off-putting with what I've seen so far, with what I know about Oldboy I am pretty sure that is something else I won't like at all. Sorry, everyone.
Runtime: 115 minutes
Directed by: Chan-Wook Park
Starring: Yeong-Ae Lee, Min-Sik Choi, Shi-Hoon Kim, Yea-Young Kwon, Tony Barry
From: Several South Korean companies
I thought that this would be a busy weekend full of movie-watching. Well... there's an issue with my air conditioning so that's why I am not focused on films. Still, I'll try to see some today and tomorrow, and those reviews will be popping up who knows when. As for this movie, it's 0-2 when it comes to Park's films, as I disliked this as much as I did Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I explain why in my short Letterboxd review below:
After all, the general story sounded interesting: “a unjustly convicted young lady is freed from prison and is looking for revenge against those who created the plot to put her in prison”. It sounds like something I'd dig. However, the story... not only did I also find it incredibly unpleasant but it was just preposterous and nonsensical. The movie has its moments (this does not include all that cake/Tofu stuff; is this a cultural thing I have no knowledge of or was this just a failed attempt at being “amusing” by being “wacky”?) but they were few and far between for me. Instead, I was just turned off by much of what I was seeing, and boy does it get worse as it progresses.
I think I am done with Chan-Wook Park's movies for good. Yes, that means never seeing the much-beloved Oldboy. If I have major tonal issues/think what he does is too off-putting with what I've seen so far, with what I know about Oldboy I am pretty sure that is something else I won't like at all. Sorry, everyone.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Savage Beach
Savage Beach (1989)
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Andy Sidaris
Starring: Dona Spier, Hope Marie Carlton, John Aprea, Bruce Penhall, Al Leong
From: Malibu Bay Films
The past few days I have rewatched the Andy Sidaris movies Malibu Express, Hard Ticket to Hawaii and Picasso Trigger; all of them are goofy yet endearing due to the type of films they are and them targeting a certain demographic. I did that so I could give them better reviews on Letterboxd. Well, this isn't as good as those; this one actually tries to be serious! I explain all that below:
Here is my last Andy Sidaris movie for at least a few weeks, as seeing too many of these in too short a time could be harmful to my brain. Plus, this just wasn't up to snuff compared to the director's previous three movies. Andy Sidaris actually tried to be serious here, and talk about not playing to your strengths. Sure, there's still some bare breasts, but it's certainly not as wacky or goofy as the previous three he did.
Instead, it's all about the two lead ladies trying to fly medicine to a far-away island or else some sick children there will die (that plot point was pretty much forgotten about, BTW) but they crash on a different island, one where “buried treasure” from the Japanese in World War II is said to be located, and several different people are looking for it.
Yeah, it's not that exciting, aside from such hilarity as a Japanese actor obviously in his 20's having on bad old age makeup to look like someone who has lived on that island since World War II. Plus, I've seen plenty of movies with B movie legend Al Leong (he's also a stuntman) in them. Most of those roles were like the one in Die Hard, where the part is small and he doesn't speak; at least in that film you can remember that he's the one who grabbed the candy bar to eat. Well, here he has a larger part, and he actually has dialogue to say.
Even with that, most people would probably be fine with skipping this, as there are other Sidaris pictures to see if you want to check out the sort of entertainment he's best known for. I understand that after this Mr. Sidaris returned to what he is best at, and I'll discover that on a later date. At least now I can focus on “actual” movies, or at least ones that are more intellectually stimulating than the last few I have seen.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Directed by: Andy Sidaris
Starring: Dona Spier, Hope Marie Carlton, John Aprea, Bruce Penhall, Al Leong
From: Malibu Bay Films
The past few days I have rewatched the Andy Sidaris movies Malibu Express, Hard Ticket to Hawaii and Picasso Trigger; all of them are goofy yet endearing due to the type of films they are and them targeting a certain demographic. I did that so I could give them better reviews on Letterboxd. Well, this isn't as good as those; this one actually tries to be serious! I explain all that below:
Here is my last Andy Sidaris movie for at least a few weeks, as seeing too many of these in too short a time could be harmful to my brain. Plus, this just wasn't up to snuff compared to the director's previous three movies. Andy Sidaris actually tried to be serious here, and talk about not playing to your strengths. Sure, there's still some bare breasts, but it's certainly not as wacky or goofy as the previous three he did.
Instead, it's all about the two lead ladies trying to fly medicine to a far-away island or else some sick children there will die (that plot point was pretty much forgotten about, BTW) but they crash on a different island, one where “buried treasure” from the Japanese in World War II is said to be located, and several different people are looking for it.
Yeah, it's not that exciting, aside from such hilarity as a Japanese actor obviously in his 20's having on bad old age makeup to look like someone who has lived on that island since World War II. Plus, I've seen plenty of movies with B movie legend Al Leong (he's also a stuntman) in them. Most of those roles were like the one in Die Hard, where the part is small and he doesn't speak; at least in that film you can remember that he's the one who grabbed the candy bar to eat. Well, here he has a larger part, and he actually has dialogue to say.
Even with that, most people would probably be fine with skipping this, as there are other Sidaris pictures to see if you want to check out the sort of entertainment he's best known for. I understand that after this Mr. Sidaris returned to what he is best at, and I'll discover that on a later date. At least now I can focus on “actual” movies, or at least ones that are more intellectually stimulating than the last few I have seen.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
I Talk The Unrated Producer's Cut
As I promised in the last review I posted here, here are my thoughts of the alternate version of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. My thoughts are below. Note that I'll be back on Friday as I'll be rewatching some old things for Letterboxd:
Two days ago, I reviewed the theatrical version of this movie for Letterboxd, and noted how it was awful and thus it deserved the one star it got. I had never seen this version before, which was a popular bootleg for years as it was the workprint version of this film. Finally, it was put out on disc for people to see. To be perfectly honest, this is certainly better than the Theatrical Cut, but in no way would I call this “good”... unless you're comparing only the movies in the franchise to each other.
I was surprised to see it wasn't as different as I was led to believe. Basically, it was edited better and material was added in or sometime excised and that made it not so incoherent to watch, that is for sure. There is more footage of both Jamie Lloyd and Dr. Loomis, and to mention what I thought were two big keys, Alan Howarth's score was restored and the ending wasn't the disaster we saw in the theatrical cut; sure it's goofy but it's better.
However, what's the old adage about making chicken salad out of chicken shi... well, you know? As I said in the other review all the problems during production ruined whatever story screenwriter Daniel Farrands came up with and while the changes here usually were for the better (but not always; a thing or two they made more explicit than I thought they should have) the story still has its issues and the performances weren't always up to snuff. It makes the theatrical version something that you can skip past by watching this instead, but it's still not a good horror picture.
Two days ago, I reviewed the theatrical version of this movie for Letterboxd, and noted how it was awful and thus it deserved the one star it got. I had never seen this version before, which was a popular bootleg for years as it was the workprint version of this film. Finally, it was put out on disc for people to see. To be perfectly honest, this is certainly better than the Theatrical Cut, but in no way would I call this “good”... unless you're comparing only the movies in the franchise to each other.
I was surprised to see it wasn't as different as I was led to believe. Basically, it was edited better and material was added in or sometime excised and that made it not so incoherent to watch, that is for sure. There is more footage of both Jamie Lloyd and Dr. Loomis, and to mention what I thought were two big keys, Alan Howarth's score was restored and the ending wasn't the disaster we saw in the theatrical cut; sure it's goofy but it's better.
However, what's the old adage about making chicken salad out of chicken shi... well, you know? As I said in the other review all the problems during production ruined whatever story screenwriter Daniel Farrands came up with and while the changes here usually were for the better (but not always; a thing or two they made more explicit than I thought they should have) the story still has its issues and the performances weren't always up to snuff. It makes the theatrical version something that you can skip past by watching this instead, but it's still not a good horror picture.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Snake Eater...
is still a bad yet hilarious movie; I confirmed this by watching it last night on the El Rey Network. I reviewed it back in 2011 here.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Joe Chappelle
Starring: Donald Pleasence, “Paul Stephen Rudd”, Marianne Hagan, Mitchell Ryan, Bradford English
From: Dimension
Yes, I finally got back to watching Halloween movies, and as I had remembered long ago, this is pretty awful. In a few days I'll see the “Unrated Producer's Cut” of this for the first time and I understand it's not as bad. What they put out theatrically... it's pretty appalling. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
NOTE: This is the theatrical cut I am reviewing; in a few days I will watch and review the Unrated Producer's Cut that I haven't seen before but has to be better than this, or at least not as rancid.
Last fall I rewatched the first five Halloween movies; talk about a mixed bag. As I had seen this bad movie once before (and believe it or not this is the newest Halloween film I have seen. The rest of the sequels I actually haven't watched yet, which I understand is probably a good thing if I wish to avoid seeing bad motion pictures) I knew that a second viewing probably wouldn't change my opinion, and I was right. This is pretty awful.
The general story seemed OK in theory. The screenwriter of the fifth film randomly included that man in black who busted him out of jail and never explained it so the filmmakers here decided to tie it in by going with the Celtic and Druid angle, which was at least mentioned before in the franchise. However, due to reasons not entirely known by me, there were many production issues during filming and there were plenty of reshoots and what ended up in the theatrical cut is an incoherent almost incomprehensible mess. A bunch of random things happen haphazardly that you couldn't possibly care about and rather than end, the movie pretty much stops and doesn't resolve much of anything. What a limp and flaccid finale it was, and even more of a mess than the rest of the film.
As for the performances, meh. Even Donald Pleasence did not deliver a great performance; then again he was hardly in this version of the film anyhow. What an insulting end to that character, by the way. “Paul Steven Rudd” makes him movie debut here and the lasting memory of his performance is that while his character appeared earlier in the series, it did not mean much anyway and he was a creepy voyeur who somehow became one of the heroes. They did not bring back Danielle Harris to reprise her role of Jamie Lloyd and the studio first acted like they did not want anything to do with her then gave her an insultingly low amount of money to do the role. The actress they cast instead was OK but the fans naturally were not happy with that.
To mention an aside, a few years ago I listened to a now defunct podcast where screenwriter Daniel Farrands (yes, the guy who later produced the Nightmare on Elm Street documentary Never Sleep Again and wrote Crystal Lake Memories) talked about the badness of this and the two tidbits I remember was that the role of the “shock jock” (which ended up being a pointless diversion) was going to be played by HOWARD STERN but he wisely turned it down and Farrands wished that Mike Myers would have appeared in the movie-for obvious reasons-even if it was just a cameo and yet the in-joke never happened.
Anyway, due to the troubled production I understand that most of the people involved have disowned this, and unless you want to see every movie in this franchise I suggest that you do the same and not bother wasting 1 ½ hours on this claptrap.
Runtime: 88 minutes
Directed by: Joe Chappelle
Starring: Donald Pleasence, “Paul Stephen Rudd”, Marianne Hagan, Mitchell Ryan, Bradford English
From: Dimension
Yes, I finally got back to watching Halloween movies, and as I had remembered long ago, this is pretty awful. In a few days I'll see the “Unrated Producer's Cut” of this for the first time and I understand it's not as bad. What they put out theatrically... it's pretty appalling. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
NOTE: This is the theatrical cut I am reviewing; in a few days I will watch and review the Unrated Producer's Cut that I haven't seen before but has to be better than this, or at least not as rancid.
Last fall I rewatched the first five Halloween movies; talk about a mixed bag. As I had seen this bad movie once before (and believe it or not this is the newest Halloween film I have seen. The rest of the sequels I actually haven't watched yet, which I understand is probably a good thing if I wish to avoid seeing bad motion pictures) I knew that a second viewing probably wouldn't change my opinion, and I was right. This is pretty awful.
The general story seemed OK in theory. The screenwriter of the fifth film randomly included that man in black who busted him out of jail and never explained it so the filmmakers here decided to tie it in by going with the Celtic and Druid angle, which was at least mentioned before in the franchise. However, due to reasons not entirely known by me, there were many production issues during filming and there were plenty of reshoots and what ended up in the theatrical cut is an incoherent almost incomprehensible mess. A bunch of random things happen haphazardly that you couldn't possibly care about and rather than end, the movie pretty much stops and doesn't resolve much of anything. What a limp and flaccid finale it was, and even more of a mess than the rest of the film.
As for the performances, meh. Even Donald Pleasence did not deliver a great performance; then again he was hardly in this version of the film anyhow. What an insulting end to that character, by the way. “Paul Steven Rudd” makes him movie debut here and the lasting memory of his performance is that while his character appeared earlier in the series, it did not mean much anyway and he was a creepy voyeur who somehow became one of the heroes. They did not bring back Danielle Harris to reprise her role of Jamie Lloyd and the studio first acted like they did not want anything to do with her then gave her an insultingly low amount of money to do the role. The actress they cast instead was OK but the fans naturally were not happy with that.
To mention an aside, a few years ago I listened to a now defunct podcast where screenwriter Daniel Farrands (yes, the guy who later produced the Nightmare on Elm Street documentary Never Sleep Again and wrote Crystal Lake Memories) talked about the badness of this and the two tidbits I remember was that the role of the “shock jock” (which ended up being a pointless diversion) was going to be played by HOWARD STERN but he wisely turned it down and Farrands wished that Mike Myers would have appeared in the movie-for obvious reasons-even if it was just a cameo and yet the in-joke never happened.
Anyway, due to the troubled production I understand that most of the people involved have disowned this, and unless you want to see every movie in this franchise I suggest that you do the same and not bother wasting 1 ½ hours on this claptrap.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Pitfall
Pitfall (1948)
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Andre De Toth
Starring: Dick Powell, Lizabeth Scott, Jane Wyatt, Raymond Burr, John Litel
From: Regal Films
This is the second noir I watched last night, and it turned out to be pretty good, not to mention having some similar themes to the film I reviewed a few hours ago. Read all about it below via my Letterboxd review:
Last night on TCM they had a theme where they showed several movies related to insurance investigators. It turns out that Double Indemnity wasn't the only noir dealing with that topic. This is definitely not related to the old Atari 2600 game, which I did play when I was really young; considering that there are plans for a trilogy of “dark thrillers” based on TETRIS, I feel like I should clarify such things and also mention that I am pretty certain there have been Hollywood types who have thought about a movie based on Pitfall!
As for this movie, Dick Powell is the insurance investigator and he gets involved in an embezzlement case and the gal of the embezzler is the sultry voiced Lizabeth Scott (as Mona Stevens) and as he leads what he feels is a boring middle class suburban life (despite having a wife and young kid) he ends up at first being happy with the excitement of “hanging out” with Mona... before things turn sour. Raymond Burr is an imposing private detective who has a thing for Mona too, and as he's the “stalker” type, it means that she has issues with several different men, and it's a thorny situation which of course turns out pretty badly.
The movie starts off and we see Powell living what looks to be an idyllic life in the suburbs, nice home and nice family. Things are bright and sunny, literally and figuratively. But what turned out to be a dream life for him ended up a nightmare as he got mixed up in that mess and the movie does show the dangers of suburban life, in that it can be really boring so people could be led astray. The thing is, Mona isn't really a femme fatale; rather, it's the men who can't keep it in their pants and are turned on by her good looks and husky voice. As things get darker, it's also a literal change and you get to see the typical noir cinematography as those dark themes are explored, and even Powell's kid having nightmares can be seen as a sign of trouble, even if it was “those darn comic books” that were a big root of it.
The film has an interesting story and it's nicely directed by De Toth; as the cast does a nice job overall, it all adds up to a pretty good noir.
Runtime: 86 minutes
Directed by: Andre De Toth
Starring: Dick Powell, Lizabeth Scott, Jane Wyatt, Raymond Burr, John Litel
From: Regal Films
This is the second noir I watched last night, and it turned out to be pretty good, not to mention having some similar themes to the film I reviewed a few hours ago. Read all about it below via my Letterboxd review:
Last night on TCM they had a theme where they showed several movies related to insurance investigators. It turns out that Double Indemnity wasn't the only noir dealing with that topic. This is definitely not related to the old Atari 2600 game, which I did play when I was really young; considering that there are plans for a trilogy of “dark thrillers” based on TETRIS, I feel like I should clarify such things and also mention that I am pretty certain there have been Hollywood types who have thought about a movie based on Pitfall!
As for this movie, Dick Powell is the insurance investigator and he gets involved in an embezzlement case and the gal of the embezzler is the sultry voiced Lizabeth Scott (as Mona Stevens) and as he leads what he feels is a boring middle class suburban life (despite having a wife and young kid) he ends up at first being happy with the excitement of “hanging out” with Mona... before things turn sour. Raymond Burr is an imposing private detective who has a thing for Mona too, and as he's the “stalker” type, it means that she has issues with several different men, and it's a thorny situation which of course turns out pretty badly.
The movie starts off and we see Powell living what looks to be an idyllic life in the suburbs, nice home and nice family. Things are bright and sunny, literally and figuratively. But what turned out to be a dream life for him ended up a nightmare as he got mixed up in that mess and the movie does show the dangers of suburban life, in that it can be really boring so people could be led astray. The thing is, Mona isn't really a femme fatale; rather, it's the men who can't keep it in their pants and are turned on by her good looks and husky voice. As things get darker, it's also a literal change and you get to see the typical noir cinematography as those dark themes are explored, and even Powell's kid having nightmares can be seen as a sign of trouble, even if it was “those darn comic books” that were a big root of it.
The film has an interesting story and it's nicely directed by De Toth; as the cast does a nice job overall, it all adds up to a pretty good noir.
Double Indemnity
Double Indemnity (1944)
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Billy Wilder
Starring: Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson, Porter Hall, Jean Heather
From: Paramount
This is the first of the two film noir movies I watched last night via Turner Classic Movies. This is indeed a classic film, and not just a classic noir. I say a few words about it below via Letterboxd:
Last night TCM showed this movie so I figured it was about time to see not only a classic film noir, but a classic in general. It's definitely a noir, between the way it's shot/lit, great use of light/shadows, most of the story taking place via flashbacks, a deadly dame, hardboiled narration, and all the rest; it ticks many different boxes as it tells its tale of a man who sells insurance being seduced by an alluring wife and they conspire to kill her husband and make it look like an accident-and one not so common-so that she would get double the amount of money on his policy.
The movie indeed is pretty great. It's always compelling as you see poor sap Walter Neff get manipulated by Phyllis Dietrichson and both Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck are great in their roles. Neff seems like a nice-enough dude, even if he does some rotten things for Ms. Phyllis, a classic femme fatale. So is Edward G. Robinson as Barton Keyes, a claims adjuster who is quite wise and can easily spot scams. That is a problem for Walter and Phyllis and can they pull off the scam? Like I said it's always compelling-with various surprising twists and turns along the way-and is well-directed by a great director in Billy Wilder; the background is always well-done but understated. The setting is Los Angeles and they picked appropriate locations to film at.
Come to think of it I think it's Robinson who delivers the best performance; others have noted it but his soliloquy about methods of suicide and why he has his doubts about the death of Mr. Dietrichson, it was awesome. Then again there's acres of quality dialogue throughout. And yes I did laugh at the president of that insurance company being named Edward Norton. Anyway, I say that if someone doesn't know what a film noir was and you wanted to show them one that would explain what the genre was all about and how great it would be, I say it would be a great choice to pick this film.
Runtime: 107 minutes
Directed by: Billy Wilder
Starring: Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson, Porter Hall, Jean Heather
From: Paramount
This is the first of the two film noir movies I watched last night via Turner Classic Movies. This is indeed a classic film, and not just a classic noir. I say a few words about it below via Letterboxd:
Last night TCM showed this movie so I figured it was about time to see not only a classic film noir, but a classic in general. It's definitely a noir, between the way it's shot/lit, great use of light/shadows, most of the story taking place via flashbacks, a deadly dame, hardboiled narration, and all the rest; it ticks many different boxes as it tells its tale of a man who sells insurance being seduced by an alluring wife and they conspire to kill her husband and make it look like an accident-and one not so common-so that she would get double the amount of money on his policy.
The movie indeed is pretty great. It's always compelling as you see poor sap Walter Neff get manipulated by Phyllis Dietrichson and both Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck are great in their roles. Neff seems like a nice-enough dude, even if he does some rotten things for Ms. Phyllis, a classic femme fatale. So is Edward G. Robinson as Barton Keyes, a claims adjuster who is quite wise and can easily spot scams. That is a problem for Walter and Phyllis and can they pull off the scam? Like I said it's always compelling-with various surprising twists and turns along the way-and is well-directed by a great director in Billy Wilder; the background is always well-done but understated. The setting is Los Angeles and they picked appropriate locations to film at.
Come to think of it I think it's Robinson who delivers the best performance; others have noted it but his soliloquy about methods of suicide and why he has his doubts about the death of Mr. Dietrichson, it was awesome. Then again there's acres of quality dialogue throughout. And yes I did laugh at the president of that insurance company being named Edward Norton. Anyway, I say that if someone doesn't know what a film noir was and you wanted to show them one that would explain what the genre was all about and how great it would be, I say it would be a great choice to pick this film.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
The Return Of Swamp Thing
The Return of Swamp Thing (1989)
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Jim Wynorski
Starring: Louis Jourdan, Heather Locklear, Sarah Douglas, Ace Mask, Dick Durock
From: Lightyear Entertainment
I will be back Sunday night with a pair of film noir reviews. For now, I will talk about this movie, which I did see as a kid but this was my first time watching it as an adult. It's SO goofy but it's charming so it's something I can't hate and at least I think it's average. I explain it in my Letterboxd review below:
Runtime: 89 minutes
Directed by: Jim Wynorski
Starring: Louis Jourdan, Heather Locklear, Sarah Douglas, Ace Mask, Dick Durock
From: Lightyear Entertainment
I will be back Sunday night with a pair of film noir reviews. For now, I will talk about this movie, which I did see as a kid but this was my first time watching it as an adult. It's SO goofy but it's charming so it's something I can't hate and at least I think it's average. I explain it in my Letterboxd review below:
This is yet another film that I last saw at least 20 years ago; I remembered it being really goofy but the most dominant memory was the cool opening credits where as you hear CCR's Born on the Bayou we see various panels from the actual comic throughout the years. Seeing that again, those credits are still pretty cool. The movie as a whole... I can only rate it as average. Then again that's the same rating I gave the original Swamp Thing when I rewatched it a few months ago.
Here, Dr. Arcane has returned. Yes, after the events of the first movie. They half-ass try to explain it away. So it's just like something you'd see in a comic book!
Anyway, he has returned and he's looking for the right results to an experiment that will reverse the effects of aging. His stepdaughter Heather Locklear happens to step in the picture and she is just what he needs. Thankfully Swampie is there too to save the day.
The film is definitely tongue in cheek and light in tone, which was far from the first one. Some of the humor works, and sometimes it doesn't. This is something so goofy you can't get mad about it. After all, it's a film where Dr. Arcane has a security team wearing orange jumpsuits and the leader of the squad is a hairy dude who always has his suit almost completely unzipped, and where the number two was played by a former Penthouse Pet, one of the actors is named Ace Mask, and odious comic relief is from a pair of 12 year old boys. But at least the costumes look fine and it is an easy watch.
So yeah, this is definitely a PG-13 Jim Wynorski picture and it's exactly what you'd expect from such a thing.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Wings
Wings (1927)
Runtime: The restored version I saw was 144 minutes long
Directed by: William A. Wellman
Starring: Charles "Buddy" Rogers, Richard Arlen, Clara Bow, El Brendel, Jobyna Ralston
From: Paramount
A mutual on Letterboxd inspired me to finally watch this late last night. It's not great but I thought it was pretty good. I explain it all below:
I had the time last night so I figured that I would act on my inspiration of seeing a mutual here review this not that long ago and while I don't plan on ever seeing any of the movies that won Best Picture at the Oscars, at least I should see the one that won it first, you know.
The plot isn't too complicated: two young men in a small town (Jack Powell and David Armstrong) become World War I pilots. They both love a girl named Sylvia but Mary loves Jack and she's the literal girl next door. We follow their escapades both on the ground and in the air, with plane battles that are still great even 9 decades later. There also happens to be some comedy (not all of which works) and some melodrama too. Not everything in this movie works but thankfully a lot of it still does, especially the aerial stuff.
What helps is that the performances are by and all fine. This helps when the story isn't so strong. The highlight was the effervescent Clara Bow as the lead girl; she lights up the screen whenever she appears. Those awful rumors about her-especially the one w/ the USC football team-are not only gross but they sadly ruined her career. That segment in Paris where Powell and Armstrong are both hammered and she has to get them to return to base is pretty silly and yet she did a swell job with what she had to do. Oh, and the homoerotic nature of Jack and David at times made me think that Top Gun wasn't the first American military flying movie with such things!
The movie isn't great but it's still pretty good as despite it being over 2 hours it was an easy watch to me as it was a compelling story, even with the cliches. It reminds me that I should watch some more movies about World War I, even if a few of them are quite pessimistic and have a strong anti-war message.
Runtime: The restored version I saw was 144 minutes long
Directed by: William A. Wellman
Starring: Charles "Buddy" Rogers, Richard Arlen, Clara Bow, El Brendel, Jobyna Ralston
From: Paramount
A mutual on Letterboxd inspired me to finally watch this late last night. It's not great but I thought it was pretty good. I explain it all below:
I had the time last night so I figured that I would act on my inspiration of seeing a mutual here review this not that long ago and while I don't plan on ever seeing any of the movies that won Best Picture at the Oscars, at least I should see the one that won it first, you know.
The plot isn't too complicated: two young men in a small town (Jack Powell and David Armstrong) become World War I pilots. They both love a girl named Sylvia but Mary loves Jack and she's the literal girl next door. We follow their escapades both on the ground and in the air, with plane battles that are still great even 9 decades later. There also happens to be some comedy (not all of which works) and some melodrama too. Not everything in this movie works but thankfully a lot of it still does, especially the aerial stuff.
What helps is that the performances are by and all fine. This helps when the story isn't so strong. The highlight was the effervescent Clara Bow as the lead girl; she lights up the screen whenever she appears. Those awful rumors about her-especially the one w/ the USC football team-are not only gross but they sadly ruined her career. That segment in Paris where Powell and Armstrong are both hammered and she has to get them to return to base is pretty silly and yet she did a swell job with what she had to do. Oh, and the homoerotic nature of Jack and David at times made me think that Top Gun wasn't the first American military flying movie with such things!
The movie isn't great but it's still pretty good as despite it being over 2 hours it was an easy watch to me as it was a compelling story, even with the cliches. It reminds me that I should watch some more movies about World War I, even if a few of them are quite pessimistic and have a strong anti-war message.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Sicario
Sicario (2015)
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 226 reviews)
Runtime: 121 minutes
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Victor Garber, Daniel Kaluuya
From: Lionsgate
I apologize for not posting yesterday but since my last post here, when I was able to watch anything it was the first three Friday the 13th movies; the first five I have reviewed here already so when I get to the sixth one I'll post them here and on Letterboxd.
Anyhow, I finally saw this movie last night. It'll be on my Top 10 list of 2015 but I don't love this like many do. I try to explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Am I a bad member of this site for not having seen a Denis Villenueve movie until I watched this last night? Probably so, but I have to be honest here. I mean, I only finally watched this because Amazon Instant Streaming has been offering for a dollar a few days ago and I couldn't turn down such an offer. As for seeing the rest of his work... if it has the same tone and is unpleasant as this was... I won't be in a big rush to explore his filmography.
The basic plot is straightforward enough: FBI Agent Emily Blunt ends up being part of a task force w/ people affiliated with the Department of Defense (like Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro) and they go after those responsible for a bomb that killed some officers and had previously killed a few dozen people & left their corpses in their safehouse; that means a leader of the drug smugglers Sonora Cartel and meaning spending time in the drug-fueled area of Northern Mexico. A major part of the story is that Blunt and her partner Daniel Kaluuya are straight as an arrow and by the book while these new people are all YOLO and to get the job done they do anything necessary, even if it requires bending or outright breaking the law.
The movie is definitely well-made, from the direction to the acting & the expected expert cinematography from Roger Deakins, and a quality appropriate music score from Johann Johannsson. It's an always interesting movie and there are some incredibly tense scenes. It does show that the scene in Mexico is pretty rough (which is something I have always heard) and it can be argued that the government trying to fight a drug war and win it is incredibly difficult, especially if you have to resort to doing some horrible things to try and take them down.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll ever see this movie in full again; it's not an easy watch, or an entirely pleasant one either. I thought a lot of it had a real ugly tone, unrelentingly grim. Blunt's character is that of the outsider and it's appropriate as of course we're outsiders to this lawless world and how she reacts is likely how we would to some of the things she witnesses. That is all well and good, but at times I thought the character wasn't portrayed in the best light, to the point that I tended to side with the rulebreaking “good guys” rather than her and her traditional way of doing things. I don't know if that was the intent or not. Especially in the final act, I don't know if I want to see this movie again, and yet I still gave it 4 stars and it'll be somewhere on my Top 10 of 2015 list, which I'll likely post late next month.
I wish I did not feel that way about this and that I could love it like many do. I guess it's personal taste for these sorts of motion pictures that make it impossible to rate it any higher and for me to be all-in on it.
93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 226 reviews)
Runtime: 121 minutes
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Starring: Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Victor Garber, Daniel Kaluuya
From: Lionsgate
I apologize for not posting yesterday but since my last post here, when I was able to watch anything it was the first three Friday the 13th movies; the first five I have reviewed here already so when I get to the sixth one I'll post them here and on Letterboxd.
Anyhow, I finally saw this movie last night. It'll be on my Top 10 list of 2015 but I don't love this like many do. I try to explain why in my Letterboxd review below:
Am I a bad member of this site for not having seen a Denis Villenueve movie until I watched this last night? Probably so, but I have to be honest here. I mean, I only finally watched this because Amazon Instant Streaming has been offering for a dollar a few days ago and I couldn't turn down such an offer. As for seeing the rest of his work... if it has the same tone and is unpleasant as this was... I won't be in a big rush to explore his filmography.
The basic plot is straightforward enough: FBI Agent Emily Blunt ends up being part of a task force w/ people affiliated with the Department of Defense (like Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro) and they go after those responsible for a bomb that killed some officers and had previously killed a few dozen people & left their corpses in their safehouse; that means a leader of the drug smugglers Sonora Cartel and meaning spending time in the drug-fueled area of Northern Mexico. A major part of the story is that Blunt and her partner Daniel Kaluuya are straight as an arrow and by the book while these new people are all YOLO and to get the job done they do anything necessary, even if it requires bending or outright breaking the law.
The movie is definitely well-made, from the direction to the acting & the expected expert cinematography from Roger Deakins, and a quality appropriate music score from Johann Johannsson. It's an always interesting movie and there are some incredibly tense scenes. It does show that the scene in Mexico is pretty rough (which is something I have always heard) and it can be argued that the government trying to fight a drug war and win it is incredibly difficult, especially if you have to resort to doing some horrible things to try and take them down.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll ever see this movie in full again; it's not an easy watch, or an entirely pleasant one either. I thought a lot of it had a real ugly tone, unrelentingly grim. Blunt's character is that of the outsider and it's appropriate as of course we're outsiders to this lawless world and how she reacts is likely how we would to some of the things she witnesses. That is all well and good, but at times I thought the character wasn't portrayed in the best light, to the point that I tended to side with the rulebreaking “good guys” rather than her and her traditional way of doing things. I don't know if that was the intent or not. Especially in the final act, I don't know if I want to see this movie again, and yet I still gave it 4 stars and it'll be somewhere on my Top 10 of 2015 list, which I'll likely post late next month.
I wish I did not feel that way about this and that I could love it like many do. I guess it's personal taste for these sorts of motion pictures that make it impossible to rate it any higher and for me to be all-in on it.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Dark Night Of The Scarecrow
Dark Night of the Scarecrow (1981)
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Frank De Felitta
Starring: Charles Durning, Robert F. Lyons, Lane Smith, Tonya Crowe, Larry Drake
From: Wizan Productions
I probably won't be back for a few days; I won't go into details why, but just know that is the case. At least last night I got to see a cult classic. I explain it below:
For the last review that I may do for a few days (I will be busy with other things) I figured I should see one of the many hundreds of movies in my virtual (and sometimes literal) queue and I selected this cult classic horror film that I imagine would be better known if it did not happen to be a made for TV movie that aired on CBS back in 1981. There's something I remember from my childhood in the 80's and 90's... made for TV movies that aired on the broadcast networks.
This is a Southern Gothic tale (because I am a nerd, I noticed that it was obviously filmed in Southern California, but we can pretend that it's some small rural town in the South) where a little girl has an adult male for a friend but to put it matter of factly, he was “mentally handicapped”. Some good old boys don't understand so they think the relationship is gross and when an accident happens to the little girl, they go wild and poor Bubba is dead. Suddenly, mysterious things start happening, and there is also a mysterious scarecrow...
To me, I was not bothered by the fact that because this was a made for TV film from the past there was little gore and no “naughty words”. I don't need such things to be entertained. Besides, the story was always interested and there was plenty of both mood and atmosphere. Time is spend building up the characters and we quickly discover that Charles Durning (as the lead guy of the good old boys, and to think that he was a mailman) is a real A-hole, especially when the chips are down and those things happen to him and his crew. Despite the limitations the deaths are still effective and some of them are pretty nasty.
The cast does a solid job and the same goes with the direction. The little girl is a fine child actor, the late Larry Drake thankfully isn't awkwardly over the top as Bubba, and it was nice to see familiar faces to me like Durning and Lane Smith. I tell you, what the movie immediately cut to after Smith's last scene, hilarious.
Like I said this probably would be better known if it was a theatrically made film; don't let that be a hangup for you to check this out. It can be found online either for free or a cheap rental. It is an effective spooky tale.
Runtime: 96 minutes
Directed by: Frank De Felitta
Starring: Charles Durning, Robert F. Lyons, Lane Smith, Tonya Crowe, Larry Drake
From: Wizan Productions
I probably won't be back for a few days; I won't go into details why, but just know that is the case. At least last night I got to see a cult classic. I explain it below:
For the last review that I may do for a few days (I will be busy with other things) I figured I should see one of the many hundreds of movies in my virtual (and sometimes literal) queue and I selected this cult classic horror film that I imagine would be better known if it did not happen to be a made for TV movie that aired on CBS back in 1981. There's something I remember from my childhood in the 80's and 90's... made for TV movies that aired on the broadcast networks.
This is a Southern Gothic tale (because I am a nerd, I noticed that it was obviously filmed in Southern California, but we can pretend that it's some small rural town in the South) where a little girl has an adult male for a friend but to put it matter of factly, he was “mentally handicapped”. Some good old boys don't understand so they think the relationship is gross and when an accident happens to the little girl, they go wild and poor Bubba is dead. Suddenly, mysterious things start happening, and there is also a mysterious scarecrow...
To me, I was not bothered by the fact that because this was a made for TV film from the past there was little gore and no “naughty words”. I don't need such things to be entertained. Besides, the story was always interested and there was plenty of both mood and atmosphere. Time is spend building up the characters and we quickly discover that Charles Durning (as the lead guy of the good old boys, and to think that he was a mailman) is a real A-hole, especially when the chips are down and those things happen to him and his crew. Despite the limitations the deaths are still effective and some of them are pretty nasty.
The cast does a solid job and the same goes with the direction. The little girl is a fine child actor, the late Larry Drake thankfully isn't awkwardly over the top as Bubba, and it was nice to see familiar faces to me like Durning and Lane Smith. I tell you, what the movie immediately cut to after Smith's last scene, hilarious.
Like I said this probably would be better known if it was a theatrically made film; don't let that be a hangup for you to check this out. It can be found online either for free or a cheap rental. It is an effective spooky tale.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
The Maltese Falcon
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Gladys George
From: Warner Bros.
I had seen this classic film before, and when I saw it was on TCM last night I figured it was the right time for me to see this, and plus I never reviewed it here before. I say some words about it in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
It was not on my agenda to see two classic Peter Lorre movies but that's what ended up happening. Last night I saw that Turner Classic Movies would be playing this and as my last viewing was a long while ago, it made sense for me to check it out and finally do a review of this classic here.
I am certain that everyone knows about this twisty-turny tale of private eye Sam Spade dealing with a bunch of mysterious characters (none of whom you can really trust) while they are looking for the title statue, so I will mention another obvious fact, which is that this is the first famous film noir and the one that set the template for many dozens of imitators in the twenty or so years of noir's heyday, especially the gruff and unsentimental Spade being the template for the archetypal “hardboiled detective” we saw in too many noir movies to count. But there are other tropes created here that got used often in the years to come.
The pursuit of the object proves to be a lot more important than the object itself. I couldn't write down and explain everything that happened in the plot but that wasn't the point; it is great seeing all these characters interact with each other, along with the aforementioned twists and turns the plot takes. Everyone does a nice job (such as Mary Astor, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet) but it is Bogie who delivers the most memorable performance, playing the world-weary Spade and being awesome. To steal a thought from others, the way that Old Sam escalated his emasculation of Wilmer Cook (as played by Elisha Cook, Jr.) is hilarious. The original pulp story is something I should probably read, as I understand that was closely followed for this adaptation, unlike the previous two times (I'll watch the '31 and '36 versions in the future) and this is for sure a pulpy tale.
I could write an entire screed about this movie and why it's a must-see if you enjoy the genre but other people here and other sites such writings can be found, and they did it better than I could. Thankfully even 75 years later its classic reputation is still warranted.
Runtime: 100 minutes
Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Gladys George
From: Warner Bros.
I had seen this classic film before, and when I saw it was on TCM last night I figured it was the right time for me to see this, and plus I never reviewed it here before. I say some words about it in my Letterboxd review copied and pasted below:
It was not on my agenda to see two classic Peter Lorre movies but that's what ended up happening. Last night I saw that Turner Classic Movies would be playing this and as my last viewing was a long while ago, it made sense for me to check it out and finally do a review of this classic here.
I am certain that everyone knows about this twisty-turny tale of private eye Sam Spade dealing with a bunch of mysterious characters (none of whom you can really trust) while they are looking for the title statue, so I will mention another obvious fact, which is that this is the first famous film noir and the one that set the template for many dozens of imitators in the twenty or so years of noir's heyday, especially the gruff and unsentimental Spade being the template for the archetypal “hardboiled detective” we saw in too many noir movies to count. But there are other tropes created here that got used often in the years to come.
The pursuit of the object proves to be a lot more important than the object itself. I couldn't write down and explain everything that happened in the plot but that wasn't the point; it is great seeing all these characters interact with each other, along with the aforementioned twists and turns the plot takes. Everyone does a nice job (such as Mary Astor, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet) but it is Bogie who delivers the most memorable performance, playing the world-weary Spade and being awesome. To steal a thought from others, the way that Old Sam escalated his emasculation of Wilmer Cook (as played by Elisha Cook, Jr.) is hilarious. The original pulp story is something I should probably read, as I understand that was closely followed for this adaptation, unlike the previous two times (I'll watch the '31 and '36 versions in the future) and this is for sure a pulpy tale.
I could write an entire screed about this movie and why it's a must-see if you enjoy the genre but other people here and other sites such writings can be found, and they did it better than I could. Thankfully even 75 years later its classic reputation is still warranted.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
M
Runtime:
109 minutes
Directed
by: Fritz Lang
Starring:
Peter Lorre, Otto Wernicke, Gustaf Grundgens, Ellen Widmann, Inge
Landgut
From:
Nero-Film A.G.
I'll
mention right away that this is a must-see movie for any serious lover of cinema. I explain why (although not as eloquently as others have,
admittedly) in my Letterboxd review below:
As I saw a pretty terrible movie on Sunday night, I figured it was time to watch something of high quality last night and that is definitely what I did by checking out this classic. I imagine everyone is familiar with the plot of how the police and the underworld of Berlin (as the police's raids trying to find the villain) are on the lookout for a serial killer of young girls, and the ramifications of this. So, let me explain why this is so highly regarded and may be a great director's best movie.
The plot is always compelling. When we start off the killer (what an astounding performance from Peter Lorre; no surprise that people would see him here and want him to do in English language movies and later, Hollywood) is in the midst of his spree and we see the horrifying toll that is caused by the panic over his disgusting crimes, and how paranoia reigns supreme and it is easy for a mob mentality to form and false accusations be made against innocent people. The pressure constantly builds until it finally boils over, the underground get fed up with their business being interfered with and they're on the offensive against Hans Beckert.
I was always interested from beginning to end as the movie goes through various phases; all pieces work well together and it comes together to something truly excellent. You see that the police in Berlin back then used such things as fingerprint and handwriting analysis. Many different themes are explored, which I won't fully spoil here in case anyone hadn't seen it before. I'll just mention they include the danger of vigilante justice, how the mentally ill are treated, and the trouble with mob mentality.
To think that this was the first ever sound picture for Fritz Lang; I knew the visuals would be no problem and they turned out great with the different camera angles and how things were edited together (really, it was far ahead of its time), but sound was a key component here; besides there not being a score, there were several moments where there was no sound at all and they were important moments so it stood out and it was greatly effective. When you did hear sound, it told a story on its own and to think that this was only a few years after sound in movies was even a thing.
Quite simply, if you are a serious film fan and had never seen this before, that is a mistake you must fix sometime, preferably soon. It really is a masterpiece that holds up even 85 years later. The final act alone is incredible and a nail-biting experience.
Monday, May 9, 2016
Brick Mansions
Runtime:
90 minutes
Directed
by: Camille Delamarre
Starring:
Paul Walker, David Belle, RZA, Gouchy Boy, Catalina Denis
From:
Several different companies; I'll save them the embarrassment and not
mention who they were
I saw this on Netflix Instant last night and needless to say, it's a pretty terrible movie, and it also has the temerity to be pointless. Stick with the original District B13, the review of which you can check out here. My review of this movie is below, via Letterboxd:
NOTE: The version of the movie I saw was the Theatrical Cut on Netflix Instant. I know that the Unrated Cut present on the Blu release has quite a few differences aside from it being 10 minutes longer but I did not want to pay a few bucks on Amazon to see that version and to be honest, don't expect me to ever see that in the future to see how different the two cuts are as I will presume it doesn't magically make this a motion picture worth seeing.
You know, it had been awhile since I had seen a really bad movie... that wasn't my mindset going in and watching this. I heard multiple people say that this was bad but when I saw the original District B13 I noted that it was entertaining but at the same time was extremely stupid. I figured it was time to see if this was as bad as its reputation suggests... well, it is. Really, stick with the original film.
The plot is almost a carbon copy of the original District B13 aside from the action being in Detroit 2018 instead of Paris 2013; the changes they do make don't improve the story of an odd couple having to work together in the worst section of Detroit to save a girl and prevent a bomb from going off. Paul Walker can't obviously fight so there's shaky-cam and quick cutting that hides this... problem is, the entire movie is shot that way and it's just bad; that's not the main issue here. What that the movie is pointless when you compare it to the original and this remake is just made in the most incoherent fashion, even compared to the mess that's District B13. Maybe the Unrated Cut improves cohesion but even if it does, this would still be pointless.
The performances... we all know that Paul Walker wasn't a master thespian but I felt bad he was in this crap pile, and posthumously at that. David Belle played the same role he did in B13, and as an actor he's great at Parkour. As for The RZA as the leader of Brick Mansions, as an actor he's a great rapper. I am sure we all know that he's a poor actor and we aren't too saddened that his wide release theatrical days on the silver screen appear to be over with.
When I reviewed B13 I noted how it was such a product of its time, comparing it to such movies as Torque and... The Fast and the Furious. I still feel that way and that's a reason why updating it to this time was stupid, alongside the obvious of it never needing a remake to begin with. Maybe I would rate this a little higher if it wasn't so darn pointless.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Enemy Mine
Enemy Mine (1985)
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Louis Gossett, Jr., Brion James, Richard Marcus, the greatly named Bumper Robinson
From: 20th Century Fox
Would you believe that I had never seen this before? It is true. I can now say that this is a solid 3 star movie and I give the reasons why below via my Letterboxd review:
Via Amazon I watched the full 108 minute version of this movie last night as someone online said I should; despite being a child of the 1980's I never actually had seen this from beginning to end before. If I did I imagine I would have nostalgia love for it; as I don't, I'll say that this was fine and I'll explain why.
If you haven't seen this movie yet either, it's a space tale where a space racist (that's the best way to describe Dennis Quaid's character; he hates the Drac alien species) is trapped on a barren planet with the lizard-like humanoid bipedal alien species known as the Dracs and this wacky duo of course don't get along at first but as the Drac nicknamed Jerry learns English and things happen, their relationship changes... I do agree it sounds cliché but there are some surprises along the way.
I can't say that this is great but it's still a solid 3 star movie and I don't regret watching it. Quaid as the space racist and Lou Gossett, Jr. as Jerry do solid work. The 80's effects work did make me feel nostalgic, even if some of it doesn't age that greatly. The lessons taught in the movie are all nice and I say it is a parable about not being a racist in general and not stereotyping things just because they are different from you.
This movie was a troubled production as Wolfgang Petersen wasn't the original director but he came in after the first guy was fired and they had to practically start all over, then it bombed at the box office as the story probably isn't “sexy” to the general public at the time. It is unfortunate as it is a pleasant movie to watch with some nice messages for the audience, along with the requisite exciting moments. The score is from Maurice Jarre, who delivered what you would expect from him... and that is a good thing in my eyes.
Oh, and to me it is wacky yet amusing that the reason the El Rey Network showed this a few times this weekend is that they were celebrating Mother's Day and believe it or not this does fit that criteria.
Runtime: 108 minutes
Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Louis Gossett, Jr., Brion James, Richard Marcus, the greatly named Bumper Robinson
From: 20th Century Fox
Would you believe that I had never seen this before? It is true. I can now say that this is a solid 3 star movie and I give the reasons why below via my Letterboxd review:
Via Amazon I watched the full 108 minute version of this movie last night as someone online said I should; despite being a child of the 1980's I never actually had seen this from beginning to end before. If I did I imagine I would have nostalgia love for it; as I don't, I'll say that this was fine and I'll explain why.
If you haven't seen this movie yet either, it's a space tale where a space racist (that's the best way to describe Dennis Quaid's character; he hates the Drac alien species) is trapped on a barren planet with the lizard-like humanoid bipedal alien species known as the Dracs and this wacky duo of course don't get along at first but as the Drac nicknamed Jerry learns English and things happen, their relationship changes... I do agree it sounds cliché but there are some surprises along the way.
I can't say that this is great but it's still a solid 3 star movie and I don't regret watching it. Quaid as the space racist and Lou Gossett, Jr. as Jerry do solid work. The 80's effects work did make me feel nostalgic, even if some of it doesn't age that greatly. The lessons taught in the movie are all nice and I say it is a parable about not being a racist in general and not stereotyping things just because they are different from you.
This movie was a troubled production as Wolfgang Petersen wasn't the original director but he came in after the first guy was fired and they had to practically start all over, then it bombed at the box office as the story probably isn't “sexy” to the general public at the time. It is unfortunate as it is a pleasant movie to watch with some nice messages for the audience, along with the requisite exciting moments. The score is from Maurice Jarre, who delivered what you would expect from him... and that is a good thing in my eyes.
Oh, and to me it is wacky yet amusing that the reason the El Rey Network showed this a few times this weekend is that they were celebrating Mother's Day and believe it or not this does fit that criteria.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
The Pirates
The Pirates (Hae-Jeok: Ba-Da-Ro Gan San-Jeok) (2014)
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Lee Seok-Hoon
Starring: Kim Nam-Gil, Son Ye-Jin, Oh Dal-Su, Park Cheol-Min, Yoo Hae-Jin
From: Harimao Pictures
Thursday night I finally checked this out; I delayed viewing the movie due to mixed opinions. It was something that I enjoyed, although it's not as great as some of the Korean movies I have seen before. I explain this in my Letterboxd review below:
I first heard about this movie from another site, where they posted some character posters. This was even before it was released in its native South Korea. It got some positive buzz from all “the white people” who saw those posters. Later, sites such as this one gave their opinions and not everyone enjoyed this. That is why I delayed watching this until last night, even though it was always in the back of my mind as I also enjoyed said character posters.
I knew beforehand that the tone would be pretty light and it was. The setting is late 14th century Korea, right before the Joseon Dynasty started-that lasted for about 500 years-and those in powers receive a Royal Seal from the Ming Dynasty. No, not the animal, but rather seal as in emblem. Anyhow, an accident happens and a whale swallows the Seal, so for a monetary award several different groups look for that large aquatic animal: a good band of pirates and a heel band of pirates, a group of bandits and some royal military.
The movie is pretty ridiculous if you think about it and the comedy can be hit or miss. I've heard it compared to an American blockbuster and that seems valid, both good and bad. That said, I was still pretty entertained. The characters were certainly memorable, especially the heroic pirates, as they are led by a young attractive woman as their leader, and she was awesome-not because she was a young attractive woman but because she was a kick-ass character who also loved whales. The action setpieces are pretty rad and unique, so that was a big asset to me. In terms of comparison, I have seen all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and I'll review them here sometime in the future, but except for the original the others are average or worse, and I'll explain why when I see those again; I tell you, I am not looking forward to seeing Pirates 3 a second time!
It's not the best Korean film I have seen and I understand why it's not for everyone. Me, I was able to enjoy it for what it was and I simply had fun checking this out.
Runtime: 130 minutes
Directed by: Lee Seok-Hoon
Starring: Kim Nam-Gil, Son Ye-Jin, Oh Dal-Su, Park Cheol-Min, Yoo Hae-Jin
From: Harimao Pictures
Thursday night I finally checked this out; I delayed viewing the movie due to mixed opinions. It was something that I enjoyed, although it's not as great as some of the Korean movies I have seen before. I explain this in my Letterboxd review below:
I first heard about this movie from another site, where they posted some character posters. This was even before it was released in its native South Korea. It got some positive buzz from all “the white people” who saw those posters. Later, sites such as this one gave their opinions and not everyone enjoyed this. That is why I delayed watching this until last night, even though it was always in the back of my mind as I also enjoyed said character posters.
I knew beforehand that the tone would be pretty light and it was. The setting is late 14th century Korea, right before the Joseon Dynasty started-that lasted for about 500 years-and those in powers receive a Royal Seal from the Ming Dynasty. No, not the animal, but rather seal as in emblem. Anyhow, an accident happens and a whale swallows the Seal, so for a monetary award several different groups look for that large aquatic animal: a good band of pirates and a heel band of pirates, a group of bandits and some royal military.
The movie is pretty ridiculous if you think about it and the comedy can be hit or miss. I've heard it compared to an American blockbuster and that seems valid, both good and bad. That said, I was still pretty entertained. The characters were certainly memorable, especially the heroic pirates, as they are led by a young attractive woman as their leader, and she was awesome-not because she was a young attractive woman but because she was a kick-ass character who also loved whales. The action setpieces are pretty rad and unique, so that was a big asset to me. In terms of comparison, I have seen all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and I'll review them here sometime in the future, but except for the original the others are average or worse, and I'll explain why when I see those again; I tell you, I am not looking forward to seeing Pirates 3 a second time!
It's not the best Korean film I have seen and I understand why it's not for everyone. Me, I was able to enjoy it for what it was and I simply had fun checking this out.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Mad Love
Mad Love (1935)
Runtime: 68 minutes
Directed by: Karl Freund
Starring: Peter Lorre, Frances Drake, Colin Clive, Ted Healy, Sara Halden
From: MGM
This is something I watched on TCM late last night. I chose it on a whim and it turned out to be a fine decision indeed. Read all about it below via my Letterboxd review:
This was a movie that played late last night on Turner Classic Movies and I only decided to watch it shortly before it started once I noticed it was on the schedule. The movie was only 68 minutes long, starred a bald Peter Lorre, was a version of The Hands of Orlac, I saw some positive reviews, and it just seemed like the right film to see. Turns out, it was. If you know the Orlac story, this will be familiar: a pianist has his hands badly injured in an accident and a surgeon who has the hots for the pianist's wife Yvonne grafts the hands of a serial killer onto him, and he changes.
Ted Healy (yes, the leader of the act that would later become The Three Stooges after they dumped him) provides some comic relief, not all of it funny. The setting is France but this is not always convincing with all the Americans and American accents around... yet this wacky film which has everything from knife throwing and a serial killer who has an interest in Hoover Dam to a cleaning lady with a pet cockatoo, and Lorre's Dr. Gogol getting his jollies from looking at a wax figure of Yvonne-you see, she performs in a Grand Guignol-style production-is pretty entertaining nonetheless.
There are some truly ghoulish moments and the real highlight was Lorre in his American film debut. His character goes through a wide range of emotions and was gleefully over the top by the time the movie wraps up. The cast as a whole is fine but Lorre is the most memorable for sure. This is definitely silly and I understand how in the past there have been people as well-known as Peter Bogdanovich who hated it; I say that it is Old Peter who helped elevate the material. In addition, it is nicely filmed by German director Karl Freund and out of all movies, some parallels have been made between this and Citizen Kane, and beyond sharing Gregg Toland as a cinematographer; imagine Welles watching this and loving it.
This may not be as famous as the most famous 30's horror films out there, but if you love such things then this should definitely be tracked down for your viewing.
Runtime: 68 minutes
Directed by: Karl Freund
Starring: Peter Lorre, Frances Drake, Colin Clive, Ted Healy, Sara Halden
From: MGM
This is something I watched on TCM late last night. I chose it on a whim and it turned out to be a fine decision indeed. Read all about it below via my Letterboxd review:
This was a movie that played late last night on Turner Classic Movies and I only decided to watch it shortly before it started once I noticed it was on the schedule. The movie was only 68 minutes long, starred a bald Peter Lorre, was a version of The Hands of Orlac, I saw some positive reviews, and it just seemed like the right film to see. Turns out, it was. If you know the Orlac story, this will be familiar: a pianist has his hands badly injured in an accident and a surgeon who has the hots for the pianist's wife Yvonne grafts the hands of a serial killer onto him, and he changes.
Ted Healy (yes, the leader of the act that would later become The Three Stooges after they dumped him) provides some comic relief, not all of it funny. The setting is France but this is not always convincing with all the Americans and American accents around... yet this wacky film which has everything from knife throwing and a serial killer who has an interest in Hoover Dam to a cleaning lady with a pet cockatoo, and Lorre's Dr. Gogol getting his jollies from looking at a wax figure of Yvonne-you see, she performs in a Grand Guignol-style production-is pretty entertaining nonetheless.
There are some truly ghoulish moments and the real highlight was Lorre in his American film debut. His character goes through a wide range of emotions and was gleefully over the top by the time the movie wraps up. The cast as a whole is fine but Lorre is the most memorable for sure. This is definitely silly and I understand how in the past there have been people as well-known as Peter Bogdanovich who hated it; I say that it is Old Peter who helped elevate the material. In addition, it is nicely filmed by German director Karl Freund and out of all movies, some parallels have been made between this and Citizen Kane, and beyond sharing Gregg Toland as a cinematographer; imagine Welles watching this and loving it.
This may not be as famous as the most famous 30's horror films out there, but if you love such things then this should definitely be tracked down for your viewing.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Stone Cold Dead
Stone Cold Dead (1979)
Runtime: 109 minutes
Directed by: George Mendeluk
Starring: Richard Crenna, Paul Williams, Linda Sorensen, Belinda Montgomery, Chuck Shamata
From: Ko-Zak Productions
Here is a random movie I saw last night; I found out about it as I sometimes do, that being on a messageboard. I explain the whole thing via my Letterboxd review posted below:
About a month ago, I found out about this movie; yes, it was via someone on a messageboard. He noted that it was showing on MGMHD one morning; I don't get the channel anymore but it's also on Amazon Instant Video so I could see it that way. I finally watched it last night. The plot revolved around sleaze (a mysterious sniper is killing prostitutes, and Richard Crenna is a loose cannon cop who not only wants to find the killer but he also wants to clean up the streets of Toronto) and what really caught my eye was that playing the role of a pimp and heroin dealer was PAUL WILLIAMS. Yes, that Paul Williams, the diminutive singer and songwriter who seemingly vanished for years due to a bad alcohol and drug problem and he worked on Daft Punk's last album. I was so amused at the thought of him playing that character, I had to give this a watch.
Overall, I'll say that this was fine. There's certainly plenty of sleaze between the killer (they use a wacky sniper rifle with a Canon camera on it so they can take pictures as they make those kills; I imagine it'd be a lot more difficult to shoot such a contraption w/ a camera weighing it down, but I probably thought more about that than the movie did), multiple ladies shooting heroin, multiple women appearing topless, shots of what was then the red light district of Toronto, and a rather uncomfortable bit with a reverend who turns out to be a pervert. But to me the highlight is Williams as the pimp and dope dealer. He's dressed as a white pimp from the 70's and with the way he acted, it was tremendous. He is part of a certain sexual act and his reaction to that greatly amused me.
As for the movie, it is slowly paced and is 109 minutes long. Yet I was always interested in the story being told, even if the lead did not make much headway at first in solving this case. He also acted like a real heel at times and was not the sensitive type, pet fish at home aside. In one scene the pimp and heroin dealer Williams came off as more sympathetic, which I thought was interesting. But otherwise I was amused at him being a loose cannon cop, even in this day and age some of it comes off as a little awkward. I heard others say that this has giallo elements and I can't disagree between the kills with the sniper and how they were dressed. The funky score from Paul Zaza was pretty rad, I say. In terms of other people in the cast, there's Belinda Montgomery in a supporting role, Linnea Quigley in the beginning, a one scene role from George Chuvalo as-shock of shocks-a boxer and a blink and you miss it role from the great Michael Ironside.
The movie isn't a must-see but I was still entertained by this obscure flick; there were some unintentional laughs and the final act was nice as we find out who the killer is and the motivation is rather interesting. I have no knowledge of the novel Sin Sniper that this was based upon (both titles are awesome, in my eyes) but I can say that this movie is at least fine.
Runtime: 109 minutes
Directed by: George Mendeluk
Starring: Richard Crenna, Paul Williams, Linda Sorensen, Belinda Montgomery, Chuck Shamata
From: Ko-Zak Productions
Here is a random movie I saw last night; I found out about it as I sometimes do, that being on a messageboard. I explain the whole thing via my Letterboxd review posted below:
About a month ago, I found out about this movie; yes, it was via someone on a messageboard. He noted that it was showing on MGMHD one morning; I don't get the channel anymore but it's also on Amazon Instant Video so I could see it that way. I finally watched it last night. The plot revolved around sleaze (a mysterious sniper is killing prostitutes, and Richard Crenna is a loose cannon cop who not only wants to find the killer but he also wants to clean up the streets of Toronto) and what really caught my eye was that playing the role of a pimp and heroin dealer was PAUL WILLIAMS. Yes, that Paul Williams, the diminutive singer and songwriter who seemingly vanished for years due to a bad alcohol and drug problem and he worked on Daft Punk's last album. I was so amused at the thought of him playing that character, I had to give this a watch.
Overall, I'll say that this was fine. There's certainly plenty of sleaze between the killer (they use a wacky sniper rifle with a Canon camera on it so they can take pictures as they make those kills; I imagine it'd be a lot more difficult to shoot such a contraption w/ a camera weighing it down, but I probably thought more about that than the movie did), multiple ladies shooting heroin, multiple women appearing topless, shots of what was then the red light district of Toronto, and a rather uncomfortable bit with a reverend who turns out to be a pervert. But to me the highlight is Williams as the pimp and dope dealer. He's dressed as a white pimp from the 70's and with the way he acted, it was tremendous. He is part of a certain sexual act and his reaction to that greatly amused me.
As for the movie, it is slowly paced and is 109 minutes long. Yet I was always interested in the story being told, even if the lead did not make much headway at first in solving this case. He also acted like a real heel at times and was not the sensitive type, pet fish at home aside. In one scene the pimp and heroin dealer Williams came off as more sympathetic, which I thought was interesting. But otherwise I was amused at him being a loose cannon cop, even in this day and age some of it comes off as a little awkward. I heard others say that this has giallo elements and I can't disagree between the kills with the sniper and how they were dressed. The funky score from Paul Zaza was pretty rad, I say. In terms of other people in the cast, there's Belinda Montgomery in a supporting role, Linnea Quigley in the beginning, a one scene role from George Chuvalo as-shock of shocks-a boxer and a blink and you miss it role from the great Michael Ironside.
The movie isn't a must-see but I was still entertained by this obscure flick; there were some unintentional laughs and the final act was nice as we find out who the killer is and the motivation is rather interesting. I have no knowledge of the novel Sin Sniper that this was based upon (both titles are awesome, in my eyes) but I can say that this movie is at least fine.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Green Room
Green Room (2015)
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 138 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Jeremy Saulnier
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Alia Shawkat, Joe Cole, Patrick Stewart
From: A24
I saw this movie last night on the big screen and while it's the best movie I've seen from the director, I still don't love his output like many do. That's just me and my tastes. I try to explain why below in my Letterboxd review:
You know, I've come to realize that the films of Jeremy Saulnier just aren't for me, and I am OK with that.
I've seen all three movies he's done now, and the only one I've hated was Murder Party. That said, when people gush all over Blue Ruin and this film and I only found the former to be average and the latter by star rating is the “best” I've seen him do and I honestly could only give it 3 stars despite what most others think... he's just not for me no matter the popular opinion. I wish that wasn't the case as I don't plan on ever being an outlier when it comes to opinions but it happens plenty of times.
By now people should be familiar with the plot of a douche-y punk band (really, that's what they were) who are poor and on tour on the other side of the country so they perform at a middle of nowhere club that actually is a skinhead/Neo-Nazi hangout and s*** goes wrong and they get stuck there and have to deal with the likes of Patrick Stewart. Now, the idea sounded like a winner so I was hoping that I would love this. Alas...
The general idea was a winner. There's plenty of intense moments for sure and with what the cast was given all performed nicely. However, there's the old canard with me, that being the plot and characters. I won't delve into any spoilers so don't worry about that; I'll just say that the protagonists-that being the band plus the character played by Imogen Poots-aren't all that likable and that is an issue when the antagonists are horrible white supremacists; hell, I at least admired how Patrick Stewart's character was matter of fact in trying to clean up the mess at the club, even if it meant killing some dopey young adults do some things that did not make a lot of sense to me. Honestly, how or why the band did some of the things they did, it did not make me admire them, I'll put it that way. In addition, stylistically I am not a big fan of those movies where you only have a small amount of violence but what you do get is over the top and gross gore; that isn't an automatic fail for me (I still rate Drive pretty highly. Only God Forgives, not so much, but there were far worse problems with that). Just note that this is one of those films.
I wish that I could love this like most do. The director and me are not compatible; it's me, not you, you know. At least there was still enough to where I can rate this as “fine”. As I said before, it's tense throughout, the cinematography is nice-along with the music-I have no complaints with the performances and there are some real inspired bits as they try to fight back against the bad guys. The rating is as high as I can personally go. At least I can say that this was better than the trailers for The Lobster and Swiss Army Man, which both played before this. Those look like all the negatives that some people attach to arthouse movies, and appear to be pure wankery to my eyes.
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 138 reviews)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Directed by: Jeremy Saulnier
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Alia Shawkat, Joe Cole, Patrick Stewart
From: A24
I saw this movie last night on the big screen and while it's the best movie I've seen from the director, I still don't love his output like many do. That's just me and my tastes. I try to explain why below in my Letterboxd review:
You know, I've come to realize that the films of Jeremy Saulnier just aren't for me, and I am OK with that.
I've seen all three movies he's done now, and the only one I've hated was Murder Party. That said, when people gush all over Blue Ruin and this film and I only found the former to be average and the latter by star rating is the “best” I've seen him do and I honestly could only give it 3 stars despite what most others think... he's just not for me no matter the popular opinion. I wish that wasn't the case as I don't plan on ever being an outlier when it comes to opinions but it happens plenty of times.
By now people should be familiar with the plot of a douche-y punk band (really, that's what they were) who are poor and on tour on the other side of the country so they perform at a middle of nowhere club that actually is a skinhead/Neo-Nazi hangout and s*** goes wrong and they get stuck there and have to deal with the likes of Patrick Stewart. Now, the idea sounded like a winner so I was hoping that I would love this. Alas...
The general idea was a winner. There's plenty of intense moments for sure and with what the cast was given all performed nicely. However, there's the old canard with me, that being the plot and characters. I won't delve into any spoilers so don't worry about that; I'll just say that the protagonists-that being the band plus the character played by Imogen Poots-aren't all that likable and that is an issue when the antagonists are horrible white supremacists; hell, I at least admired how Patrick Stewart's character was matter of fact in trying to clean up the mess at the club, even if it meant killing some dopey young adults do some things that did not make a lot of sense to me. Honestly, how or why the band did some of the things they did, it did not make me admire them, I'll put it that way. In addition, stylistically I am not a big fan of those movies where you only have a small amount of violence but what you do get is over the top and gross gore; that isn't an automatic fail for me (I still rate Drive pretty highly. Only God Forgives, not so much, but there were far worse problems with that). Just note that this is one of those films.
I wish that I could love this like most do. The director and me are not compatible; it's me, not you, you know. At least there was still enough to where I can rate this as “fine”. As I said before, it's tense throughout, the cinematography is nice-along with the music-I have no complaints with the performances and there are some real inspired bits as they try to fight back against the bad guys. The rating is as high as I can personally go. At least I can say that this was better than the trailers for The Lobster and Swiss Army Man, which both played before this. Those look like all the negatives that some people attach to arthouse movies, and appear to be pure wankery to my eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)